Lost renewables subsidies successfully claimed as human rights damages

13 February 2013 by

Ofgem (Gas & Electricity Markets Authority) v. Infinis) [2013] EWCA  Civ 70, Court of Appeal 13 Feburary 2013 read judgmenton appeal from decision of Lindblom J Read judgment and my previous post

This decision upholding an award of damages for a claim under Article 1 Protocol 1 (right to possessions) may seem rather straightforward to a non-lawyer. Infinis lost out on some subsidies because the regulator misunderstood a complex legal document.  It could not claim those subsidies any more, so it claimed and got damages from the regulator. But the relatively novel thing is that English law does not generally allow claims for damage caused by unlawful action by the state. And yet the Court of Appeal found it easy to dismiss the regulator’s appeal on this point.

Infinis operates two gas engines at landfills. It draws gas from the landfills, burns it in the engines and exports the energy thus generated to the grid. It claimed subsidies in the form of Renewables Obligation Certificates (ROCs) from 2009 onwards. Ofgem said that the gas engines were excluded from benefitting from the ROCs. Much of the judgment is taken up with construing the agreements under which the engines were built, and whether they amounted to “an extant qualifying arrangement [which] provides for the building of a generating station” under the relevant Orders. If there was, no ROCs. If not, then ROCs. Aficionados of the electricity industry will find [6] to [21] of Sullivan LJ’s judgment fascinating – others may not. For those who do not, the bottom line is that, for reasons fairly abstruse, Ofgem had misinterpreted the arrangements governing the regime, and its appeal against this finding was dismissed.

As I said above, English law does not contain some overarching principle that damages are payable when government or a regulator gets it wrong. You need a specific peg to attach it to, so, you might have a claim where the civil servant was guilty of misfeasance in public office (involving some sort of deliberate act), or breach of some specific statute which carries the right to damages, or where there is some breach of EU law, where different rules apply. But for an old-fashioned domestic cock-up without such features, no damages as a rule.

Hence the importance of the claim under A1P1. Below, there does not seem to have been any argument about it. But Ofgem said on appeal that, even if the non-accreditation of these engines was unlawful, there had been no breach of A1P1 because Infinis’s claim was not sufficiently established to amount to a possession for the purposes of A1P1.Ofgem said that as the ECtHR’s decision in Kopecky v Slovakia (2005) 41 EHRR 43, had made clear, an arguable claim or genuine dispute could not, without more, constitute a legitimate expectation protected by A1P1; for there to be such a legitimate expectation there would need to be either settled case law or a judicial declaration recognising the validity of claim, and prior to the judgment below there was no such decision.

The Court of Appeal was unimpressed by this. Sullivan LJ pointed out that in Kopecky the ECtHR considered the line of cases in which it had found that applicants did not have a “legitimate expectation” because it could not be said that they had a currently enforceable claim that was sufficiently established. The ECHR said that

There was a difference…. between a mere hope of restitution, however understandable that hope may be, and a “legitimate expectation”, which must be of a nature more concrete than a mere hope and be based on a legal provision or a legal act such as a judicial decision.”

But as the CA said, the claim here was not based upon a mere hope of restitution; it was based on a legal provision, namely the right to accreditation which Ofgem had denied. Either such a provision or a legal act would found such a claim for damages.

To get damages under s.8(3) of the HRA, the court must be satisfied that the award is necessary to afford just satisfaction to the claimant, and under s.8(4) it must look to Strasbourg for guidance on that. But, as I pointed out previously, Strasbourg does not help much on damages – the more cases you look at, the less you think that there is any principle concerning these awards. There are statements of principle, but then they don’t seem to be followed through to the result, with words like “just and equitable” being used instead of analysis. One mantra used in Strasbourg a lot, however, is a bit of Latin “restitutio in integrum” – putting you where you would have been, but for the wrong done to you. And that, said Infinis, and the judge, gave Infinis the value of the ROCs, which they would have got had they been accredited.

Ofgem said – no, in fact human rights have different rules for damages, relying on the leading case of  Anufrijeva v Southwark LBC [2004] QB 1124.

But the CA quoted back the following from Anufrijeva: 

The fundamental principle underlying the award of compensation is that the court should achieve what it describes as restitution in integrum. The applicant should, in so far as this is possible, be placed in the same position as if his Convention rights had not been infringed. Where the breach of a Convention right has clearly caused significant pecuniary loss, this will usually be assessed and awarded. The awards of compensation to homosexuals, discharged from the armed forces, in breach of article 8, for loss of earnings and pension rights in Lustig-Prean and Beckett v United Kingdom (2000) 31 EHRR 601″ and Smith and Grady v United Kingdom (2000) 31 EHRR 620 are good examples of this approach. The problem arises in relation to the consequences of the breach of a Convention right which are not capable of being computed in terms of financial loss.

The CA focussed on the underlined words. Ofgem may be right when the question was how to decide how much, if anything, to award to someone for non-pecuniary loss (say, for an invasion of privacy or unlawful detention), but where the losses were capable of being computed in terms of financial loss, there was no reason why those losses should not be awarded.

And this finding did not come cheap for Ofgem. The order below was for £93,454.38, with a further £2,656,743.84 subject to any further argument.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts:

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control hague convention Harry Dunn Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation refugee rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism The Round Up tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: